Ephesians 5:25-27
Major Biblical Categories
Pastor Martin continues his series on 'For Whom Did Christ Die?' by examining the death of Christ through its major biblical categories: sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. Drawing heavily on John Murray's 'Redemption Accomplished and Applied,' Martin argues that a proper understanding of these terms, rooted in their Old Testament context, necessitates a particularistic view of the atonement, where Christ's death actually secured salvation for a specific people, rather than merely making salvation possible for all. He then buttresses this argument with New Testament passages that explicitly declare the securing nature of Christ's death, such as Ephesians 5:25-27, Titus 2:14, and Romans 8:32, concluding with practical advice on how to engage those who hold to a general atonement.
Primary Texts
Topics
Outline 8 sections · 54 min
- Introduction: The Holistic Approach to the Atonement and Major Biblical Categories 0:02
- The Denial of Definite Atonement and Objections to It 4:19
- The Major Biblical Term: Sacrifice 7:14
- The Major Biblical Term: Propitiation 15:54
- The Major Biblical Term: Reconciliation 24:04
- The Major Biblical Term: Redemption 27:24
- The Death of Christ Secures Salvation in All Dimensions 32:46
- Defusing Objections and a Method for Helping Others 46:00
Key Quotes
“Our thesis is that to view those words, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption as merely making salvation possible does not do justice to the words themselves in their biblical setting.”
“The notion in essence was that the sin of the offerer was imputed to the offering, and the offering bore as a result the death penalty. It was the substituted endurance of the penalty or liability to sin.”
“Very simply stated, the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiates and displeases. And the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiates and displeases. And the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ, the 所以 I believe propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to his people.”
“something has happened in the government of God, may I say it reverently, that makes it impossible for God to be angry with those for whom a propitiation has been made.”
“If Jesus Christ paid a price to secure the release of people, those people shall be and must be released for whom the price was paid. It was no mock ransom. It was a ransom that actually secured the redemption of his people.”
“Because there is no way you can be honest with those words, but to deal with them in terms of their historic understanding or their understanding within the framework of historic Reformed or Calvinistic theology.”
“I mean when someone can say he loved me and gave himself for me if Judas can say that in hell and have it be just as honest what comfort is that for me”
“since the view of general atonement is symptomatic and not causal only a quack treats symptoms good doctors treat causes and the cause of the shoddy views on the extent of the atonement is the ignorance and shoddy views on the larger categories that we've tried to lay before you”
Applications
All listeners
- Investigate the core terms (sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption) through thorough word studies if you are having problems understanding the extent of the atonement.
- Deepen your understanding and conviction of particular atonement by contemplating these biblical terms and reading works by Professor Murray and A.W. Pink.
- When discussing the extent of the atonement with someone who raises verses like 1 Timothy 4 or 2 Peter 3:9, refuse to discuss those verses until they first discuss their understanding of foundational biblical categories like the covenant of redemption.
- Lovingly guide people to understand Christ's work by asking questions about the Father's will and Christ's consciousness of a people 'given' to him, using passages like John 6.
- Encourage people to read passages like John 17 from their own Bibles and expound what they mean, challenging them to reconcile the text with their understanding of Christ's success.
- Help people think in a holistic biblical way, moving beyond an atomistic view of scripture to understand the broader categories that permeate the doctrine of atonement.
- Be open to receiving help and understanding from others who may be sharper in different areas of scripture, even if they are 'woolly' on the extent of the atonement.
- Share good things God has revealed with an attitude of humility, willing to receive from others, so that the body of Christ makes edification of itself by speaking the truth in love.
A full transcript is available on the tab. 52 paragraphs, roughly 54 minutes.
Introduction: The Holistic Approach to the Atonement and Major Biblical Categories
Well, we return this morning now to this question that we've been wrestling with for a number of weeks, the subject, for whom did Christ die? And I would simply remind you that our approach has been that of a holistic approach, seeking to address ourselves to this vital question, not by coming to the individual texts, which are the areas where the debate most frequently rages, but rather to set the death of Christ in relationship to its own fixed biblical categories. And so we began with this outer circle, a contemplation of the death of Christ in relationship to the covenant of redemption, and we saw from the scriptures that the work that Christ accomplished upon the cross must be viewed as an expression of inter-Trinitarian commitments and arrangements, and that particularism lies at the heart, at the covenant of redemption, in which a specific people were given to Christ, and Christ assumed the liabilities of that people, and was promised grace and sustenance and a reward as he fulfilled the responsibilities connected with the salvation of that people. Then we looked at the doctrine of the atonement in relationship to the biblical doctrine of union with Christ, and of course this grows out of the covenant of redemption,
and again, the doctrine of union with Christ, and the doctrine of redemption in the form of a covenant with Christ, in which Christ assumes the headship of His people, they are in that sense even chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, and in all of His redemptive activity, Christ acts in a peculiar relationship to His people. And so again, particularism is at the heart and breathes through the very essence of the work of Christ, doctrine of the cross in its relationship to the priestly functions of Christ. And those of you who are with us Sunday mornings have been receiving an extended and amplified commentary and exposition of this concept. The main point we sought to make was that the work of the cross was indeed a bona fide priestly activity, and the priestly activity must always be conceived of in the categories of oblation or sacrifice and intercession, and there is a strict particularism that again marks the activity of the priest. He acted on behalf of a specific people to accomplish and to effect specific ends, so that particularism, the view that sees Christ work as not doing something or possibly accomplishing something for everyone in general and no one in particular,
simply cannot stand in the light of the death of Christ viewed in relationship to the categories of the covenant of redemption, union with Christ, and his priestly activity. Now we come to the inner circle this morning, a consideration of the death of Christ in its major biblical categories, and here I am greatly indebted to and will follow very closely the outline given by Professor Murray in his book Redemption and the Death of Christ. Redemption accomplished and applied in particular verses 24 through 78. Verses 24 through 78 in Redemption accomplished and applied, and as far as I'm concerned, having read probably without exaggeration thousands of pages on the subject of the atonement, trying to expose myself to the classic literature on the subject, there is nothing which in so short a compass brings together so much of a distillation of biblical truth as do these pages. I know of nothing that is a finer statement of the death of Christ considered in its major biblical categories, and those categories of course being, as Professor Murray points out, sacrifice,
The Denial of Definite Atonement and Objections to It
propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. Now the basic idea inherent in the theology of theologians of theologians of theologians of theologians of theologians of theologians of theologians of those who deny definite or specific atonement is that Christ's death was primarily the removal of obstacles in the path of saving men. It did not actually secure the salvation of any. It removed in one way or another, and there you have divergence of theological opinion. You have the moral government theory, the moral influence theory. You have within the framework of what we would call legitimate orthodoxy, those who see. A penal satisfaction in the death of Christ, but not one that actually secured the release of the guilty. So that there are these divergent views within this spectrum, but when you seek for the common denominator, those who deny definite atonement simply or view the cross essentially as that which removed obstacles in the salvation of men and rendered all men salvable.
But did not infallibly ensure the actual salvation of any. Now the objections to this position and the confirmation of the position we espouse comes or do come the objections in the establishment along two lines. We object to that other view because number one, it does not do justice to the biblical terms and their biblical meaning, which describe the work of Christ upon the cross. The terms, and we're going to look at them, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption are biblical terms to which the Bible gives specific and definitive meaning.
Our thesis is that to view those words, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption as merely making salvation possible does not do justice to the words themselves in their biblical setting. And then secondly, that view does not do justice to the declaration of scripture that in the death of Christ as sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption, Christ actually secures salvation in all of its dimensions on behalf of those for whom it was procured. In other words, not only do the words themselves demand particularism, but what those words require is the and their biblical meaning, say, will issue from them. What issues from the propitiation of Christ? What issues from the reconciliation of Christ? The redemption, the sacrifice of Christ?
The Major Biblical Term: Sacrifice
Well, the teaching of the Bible is that the actual salvation of a people issues from them, not the salvability of all men in general, but the actual salvation of specific men in particular. Well then, with that general framework as an introduction, let's go back and very briefly, I have two major headings for our lecture this morning, consider the major biblical terms used to describe the death of Christ, and then secondly, the declarations that the death of Christ secures salvation in all of its dimensions on behalf of those for whom it transpired. Alright, the major biblical terms used to describe the death of Christ, and at this point I shall be quoting profusely, from Professor Murray, I hope I've whet your appetite to master these pages. The first key word is the word sacrifice. And now quoting from page 25 on to 24 on to page 25, Professor Murray states that it lies on the surface of the New Testament that Christ's work is construed as a sacrifice. And the only question is, what notion of sacrifice governs the pervasive use of the term sacrifice, as it is applied to the work of Christ?
In other words, no one can take his New Testament into his hands and debate the statement that the work of Christ upon the cross is construed as a sacrifice. That cannot be debated by anyone who holds the New Testament in his hands. Now the question is, what notion of sacrifice predominates? That the term sacrifice is extracted from the word of God, is found lying on the face of the word of God, is evident.
Now the question is, what did God mean when he used the term sacrifice to describe that which Christ did upon the cross? In other words, what is the concept of sacrifice? Well, Professor Murray's thesis is this, and I believe it's a valid one. Steeped as these references were in the language, and ideas of the Old Testament, there is but one direction in which to seek their interpretation of the meaning and effect of sacrifice.
What is the Old Testament idea of sacrifice? If the New Testament usage drips with Old Testament connotations, then it is essential, it is incumbent upon the interpreter of this term used in the New Testament to make sure that no category of thought emerges that violates the broad, fixed categories of the Old Testament connotation of sacrifice. And breathing through the Old Testament connotation of sacrifice, quoting from Professor Murray, are the matters of sin and liability. Sin involves a certain liability, a liability arising from the holiness of God on the one hand, and the gravity of sin is the contradiction of that holiness on the other. The sacrifice was the divinely instituted provision whereby the sin might be covered, and the liability to divine wrath and curse removed. The Old Testament worshipper, when he brought his oblation to the altar, substituted an animal victim in his place. In laying his hand upon the head of the offering, there was transferred symbolically to the offering the sin and liability of the offerer.
This is the pivot on which the transaction turned. The notion in essence was that the sin of the offerer was imputed to the offering, and the offering bore as a result the death penalty. It was the substituted endurance of the penalty or liability to sin. Now that is the heart of the whole Old Testament concept of sacrifice.
It goes all the way through the many details, details of the ritual and therefore when we come to the New Testament category of Christ's death considered as sacrifice we must view it in no different no fundamentally different category than that which is imposed upon us by the Old Testament ritual which was a foreshadowing of the New Testament and substantial reality now then as we consider the subject of the death of Christ as to its extent for whom did Christ die considering it as sacrifice what category of thought is forced upon us a general indefinite atonement or a specific and effectual atonement well it's obvious if you have any acquaintance with the Old Testament what the answer is in the Old Testament it is plain that the sacrifices were not made in some general sense for all of mankind they came within the framework of God's particular love for his particular people Israel and the priest acted on behalf of that people in the annual day of atonement he acted for himself and his family in the first offering and then secondly he acted in the offering that was to be considered as applied in its efficacy to
the entire nation and when we turn to the New Testament we find that that language is picked up and applied directly to the death of Christ considered as a sacrifice for instance Hebrews Hebrews chapter 10 speaking of Christ having assumed a body the incarnation being essential to his sacrifice the writer goes on to say in Hebrews 10 10 by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all and every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oft times the same sacrifices the which can never take away sin but he when he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever sat down on the right hand of God notice he did not offer one sacrifice for sin in some generic general sense but he offered four sins particular sins is the thing for which he offered himself henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet for by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified now in the language of the Old Testament the
sanctification was not internal moral ethical sanctification the offering of the sacrifice on the day of atonement wrought about what we would call a forensic sanctification that is the people of God were no longer liable to divine wrath and displeasure for another year there was the passing over of sin now picking up that language the writer to Hebrews says this offering has perfected forever them that are sanctified that is all on whose behalf it was offered are regarded as having been perfected by the Lord that sacrifice now the outworking of the benefits of that sacrifice and it's perfect it's perfect provisions brings in the application of redemption the ultimate regeneration and sanctification and glorification of each of those for whom it was made but that's not the focus of concern in this particular passage here is a statement of the absolute certainty of the efficacy of the atonement of Christ viewed as a sacrifice so the problem then with trying to view the death of Christ as something that merely made salvation possible for all and every but for none specifically is that it simply will not do justice to the
The Major Biblical Term: Propitiation
Old Testament category of sacrifice I should say the biblical category of sacrifice dripping with Old Testament connotations and categories and then specifically said to be in a passage such as this that which is perfected forever those on whose behalf it was offered described here as the ones who are sanctified now the second great category of biblical terminology used to describe the death of Christ is that of propitiation now that the work of Christ upon the cross is to be regarded as propitiation is clearly established from at least four New Testament texts they are Romans 325 which speaks of propitiation through faith in his blood Hebrews 2 17 to make propitiation first John 2 2 and he is propitiation for our sins and first John 4 10 and he is the propitiation for our sins so you have those four explicit references to the work of Christ so you have those four explicit references to the work of Christ so you have those four explicit references to the work of Christ references to the death of Christ or to the work of Christ being described as propitiatory now Professor Murray points out and rightly so and I quote now from page 29 of Redemption
accomplished and applied the frequency with which the concept appears in the Old Testament ritual in connection in the Old Testament in connection with the sacrificial ritual the fact that the New Testament applies the work of Christ to the work of Christ that very term which denoted this concept in the Greek Old Testament and the fact that the New Testament regards the Levitical ritual as providing the pattern for the sacrifice of Christ lead to the conclusion that this is a category in terms of which the sacrifice of Christ is not only properly but necessarily interpreted in other words the idea of propitiation is so woven into the fabric of the Old Testament ritual ritual that it would be impossible to regard that ritual as the pattern of the sacrifice of Christ if propitiation did not occupy a similar place in the one great sacrifice offered. Professor Murray has established the point that though we have the word propitiation used only four times explicitly concerning the work of Christ in the New Testament, the major word used to describe the work of sacrifice or the ritual of sacrifice in the Old Testament when translating
from the Hebrew into the Greek in the Septuagint, it is this word propitiation that is the predominant word describing the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. And so Professor Murray's reasoning, I believe, is a valid one. Knowing then that these rituals were the foreshadowing of the reality, the fact that the reality is called propitiation, we are warranted to allow that whole propitiatory predominance to breathe through our understanding of the New Testament fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ. Now then, what is the primary idea behind or involved in propitiation? Now I quote again from Professor Murray because he's more economic with words than I, and under the pressure of time I want to economize with words. What does propitiation mean? In the Hebrew of the Old Testament, it is expressed by a word which means to cover. In connection with this covering, there are in particular three things to be noted.
Number one, it is in reference to sin that the covering takes place. Two, the effect of this covering is cleansing and forgiveness. Three, it is before the Lord that both the covering and its effect take place. And then he establishes that, exegetically. This means that sin creates a situation in relation to the Lord, a situation that makes the covering necessary. It is this Godward reference to both sin and the covering that must be fully appreciated. It may be said that sin, or perhaps the person who has sin, is covered before the sight of the Lord. In the thought of the Old Testament, there is but one construction that we can place upon this provision of the Lord. It is the thought of the Lord that
the sacrificial ritual. It is sin that evokes the holy displeasure or wrath of God. And vengeance is the reaction of the holiness of God to sin. And the covering is that which provides for the removal of the divine displeasure which the sin evokes. In other words, when God views sin as the moral governor of the universe, it provokes holy displeasure. The only way for that displeasure to be removed is for the sin to be covered from his sight. If the sin can be covered, the displeasure can be removed. And it is the peculiar function of propitiation to focus upon the reality of that removal. Therefore, for propitiation to be made is for something to be done that turns away on a
just basis the righteous anger and wrath of God towards sin. It is to turn it away, by covering. To propitiate, therefore, means to placate, to pacify, to appease, to conciliate. And it is this idea that is applied to the atonement accomplished by Christ.
Propitiation presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God. And the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this displeasure. Very simply stated, the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiates and displeases. And the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiates and displeases. And the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ, the 所以 I believe propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to his people.
Now, if that's the biblical concept of propitiation, and I'm confident that it is, then we must reflect upon the question that we're wrestling with. Does Christ work upon the cross, contemplated as a propitiation, merely make it possible that God will be rendered propitious? people if they will do this or that? Or did the bloodletting of the Son of God actually cover the sins of a specific defined group of people so that God is now favorably disposed to them in a just way? Now that's the question. Well, my contention is that no biblical concept of propitiation can stop short of the latter option. Propitiation does not mean the possibility that God may turn away his displeasure, but that God has actually turned away his displeasure. That
something has happened in the government of God, may I say it reverently, that makes it impossible for God to be angry with those for whom a propitiation has been made. So you see, it's not a matter of propitiation. It's a matter of propitiation. It's a matter of propitiation.
matter again of just picking up a text here that says all or every or world or something else. No, no. We must wrestle with the biblical categories within which the work of Christ is described. And having wrestled with those categories, ask the question, which concept, which understanding of the effect of the death of Christ, the intent of the death of Christ, its objects, which one does justice to the vigorous biblical terminology?
The Major Biblical Term: Reconciliation
Sacrifice, propitiation, and then, of course, we can do essentially the same with reconciliation and redemption. That the death of Christ is considered a reconciliation is clearly taught in such passages as Romans 5.10 and 2 Corinthians 5.19 through 21. The Romans 5.10 passage I'm sure familiar to many of us. If we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, how much more than being reconciled shall we be saved by His life? The death of Christ is said to effect a reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their trespasses, and in what context did He do this? He hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Now, with most of us, the word reconciliation is a more familiar word. Reconciliation has the connotation, of people that are alienated, and the alienation is overcome.
A husband and a wife are not on speaking terms, and someone goes as a third party and seeks to get them reconciled. You seek to overcome, dispose of and remove whatever is the hindrance to their coming into a face-to-face amicable relationship. Well, the primary concern of the biblical doctrine of reconciliation as it relates to the death of Christ is not the eternal, ethical, moral influence of the death of Christ overcoming the hostility of the sinner to God. Rather, the emphasis is upon the death of Christ that did something to overcome God's just hostility to the sinner. And Professor Murray has a very, very helpful and detailed case that runs on for four or five pages to demonstrate that this is the precise meaning of the word reconciliation in its biblical setting. Well, then you see we're back to where we've been right along. We have to ask ourselves the question then. When the Bible says Christ by his death reconciled us to God, are we doing justice to the word and to the language and grammar in which it occurs to say that what that really means is Christ simply made reconciliation possible if, and then put a string of conditions. Does the scripture
say that he actually reconciled the world to himself in Christ? Whatever that world is. 2 Corinthians 5 says he has reconciled it. Not he made it possible for the world to be reconciled.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. A reconciliation has been effected. So we've got to wrestle with that issue. And again, it will not do simply to parrot a few verses in which world and all and every are used.
If we're wrestling with the question, of the extent of God's intention in the death of his son, we've got to reckon with this third major category within which the work of Christ is presented to us. Sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation.
The Major Biblical Term: Redemption
And then the fourth word is the word redemption. Now again, that the work of Christ is construed as a redemption is clearly taught in the New Testament. You have such passages as Ephesians 1-7 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. I'm sorry, in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins and the parallel passage, Colossians 1-14 in whom we have redemption through his blood, which identifies the redeeming act with the bloodletting of the Son of God. And then that vigorous language of Peter, 1 Peter 1-18 knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Titus 2-14 who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us. And here it is the giving in sacrificial language that is the redemption. Alright then, it can be clearly established that the work of Christ upon the cross is construed as a redemption. Well
then we have to go to the Bible and ask what is the biblical concept of redemption? What are the biblical connotations of redemption? And it's in this category that the whole concept of ransom comes in. Ransom is a subheading of redemption. You redeem something by the payment of a price, which is the ransom. Hence our Lord speaks in Mark 10-45 of the fact that he did not come to serve to be served, but to serve and to give himself sacrificial language, a ransom for many. That is, he came to be a redeemer, who would secure release by the payment of a ransom. Now without going in again to all of the ramifications, we've got to ask the question, when the Bible uses the term redemption, when we find it in the Old Testament, when we find it in the New Testament, is it speaking
of simply making a potential release or a possible release, or does the payment of the price actually secure the release of that for which the price was paid?
Well, my contention is that there is no way to do justice to the biblical concept of redemption, other than within the strictest kind of particularism. That if Jesus Christ paid a price to secure the release of people, those people shall be and must be released for whom the price was paid. It was no mock ransom. It was a ransom that actually secured the redemption of his people.
So I hope this will open up a vein of thought to you, and that's all I'm attempting to do this morning. Not to be exhausted, we could take a whole morning on each one of these terms and only scratch the surface. But because they are the core terms, I hope that you see, if you're having problems with this, the direction in which you've got to do your investigation. It means some thorough word studies of these four categories of biblical thought.
Perhaps by way of illustrating how helpful this is. When I was wrestling through the issue of the sovereignty of God in salvation, the issue was not resolved until I did a careful word study of four words. Elect and its derivatives. Foreknow and its various first and second cousin words. And then the word predestinate, and then the word call. And after a thorough word study of those words as they're used in Scripture, I went on record as saying, if you ever hear that Pastor Albert Martin no longer holds to the sovereignty of God in grace, you'll know that he's thrown out his Bible and much with it. Because there is no way you can be honest with those words, but to deal with them in terms of their historic understanding or their understanding within the framework of historic Reformed or Calvinistic theology. Those words simply will not be pressed into the mold of another theological system.
They just will not. The words themselves so obviously mean what is confessed in terms of what is called Calvinistic soteriology or Calvinistic the concept of the sovereignty of God in grace. Well, I suggest that we must do the same thing. This was what was a tremendous help to me when I was wrestling through this issue of the atonement and for whom did Christ die. The more I studied these words, the more I came to the conviction that the sacrifice was indeed a sacrifice that was truly substitutionary. It was made on behalf of specific people. He died for sins and the propitiation did turn away the wrath of God and in that sense secure blessings for those on whose behalf it was made. That the reconciliation did actually reconcile a people to God and the redemption actually secured the release of a people.
The Death of Christ Secures Salvation in All Dimensions
So I would encourage you to pursue this matter if you're having problems with this area of biblical truth and theological thought and if you're already settled then more deeply settle yourself by a contemplation of these words and you can do no better than to begin with reading the section in Professor Murray pages 24 to I think I said 78 and then I would encourage you if you have Pink's work on the atonement he has some excellent material and on pages 158 to 266 Pink has some excellent material that will also be helpful here pages 158 under the section the atonement and its results and then oh in volume 10 pages 87 to 108 now then the second thing I want to touch on briefly is this not only does a contemplation of the death of Christ in its biblical categories demand a strict particularism but secondly the declaration that the death of Christ secures salvation in all its dimensions on behalf of those for whom it transpired there are explicit statements that the death of Christ secured
or if not secured made certain the realization of salvation in all its dimensions on behalf of those for whom the death was undergone and again this is biographical I shall never forget when some of these passages began to come home to my own heart with power and I said to myself well you dummy where you've been all your life one of them is the passage we've been studying Sunday evenings let's look at it now not for directives to husbands but in terms of exposition of solid theological perspective Ephesians 5 and verse 24 verse 25 husbands love your wives even as and here is this wonderful statement love your wives even as Christ also loved the church there was an entity called the church that was the object of Christ's love and the love then led him to his self giving and gave himself up for it so here is a specific people the church for whom Christ gives himself gave himself up for it and then you have these hina clauses of purpose
one of the first things you learn in first year Greek hina in order that it's a statement of intention Christ loved Christ gave in order that he might what make all men salvable put all men in a salvable state so that preachers then would not have to proclaim the gospel with tongue in cheek and have a bona fide offer of the no no no no look at what he says he loved and gave that he might sanctify it having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word in order that another hina clause of purpose that he might present the church to himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish here then the death of Christ which was the fruit of his love had as its specific intent that those for whom he died should be sanctified and ultimately presented to himself now if someone argues and says well that was an inner purpose of the death of Christ but there was a broader and a more extensive purpose oh yes he loved the church
and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and present it but the verse does not say that he did not love nor give himself for anyone else well you see there are many problems with taking that tact not the least of which is you don't build theology on the silences of scripture especially when it's in a context of particularism he's urging husbands to love their own wives to have a distinct and peculiar love to those that they have taken to themselves in the strict particularism of marriage marriage is a very particular relationship at least I hope yours is and I'm sure your wife hopes yours is if you're married that there is a very particular relationship and he says husbands you're defined as the great pattern of this loving particularism Jesus Christ so if we destroy the particularism we undercut much of the pressure of the apostles teaching plus the fact this simply will not stand on exegetical feet because what Christ did is said at every point to be a sacrifice propitiation reconciliation and redemption and if you're going to have it to be that here you can't say well then his death was something other than sacrifice propitiation reconciliation and redemption for these other people where does the Bible describe what he did
in lesser categories you see if you're going to split it up and say well yes he did these particular things to secure those particular ends for those particular people so you have strict particularism well where in the Bible does it say that his death then was something other than sacrifice for those for whom he died where was it something less than propitiation where was it something less than reconciliation in what way was it something less than redemption well then you see you're left without any exegetical materials because the Bible simply doesn't do that it always describes the death in those categories and those vis-a-vigorous categories as surely as they demand particularism or strict universalism and that's where you'll go the minute you take these terms seriously you'll either end up a particularistic or a universalist yeah you will now thank God there are many that live with a blessed inconsistency that don't end up universalist but neither can they open up the glory of what these terms mean they just can't do it and in failing to do it you undercut the confidence that is the rightful portion of the people of God I mean when someone can say he loved me and gave himself for me if Judas can say that in hell and have it be just as honest what comfort is that for me
can Judas say in hell he loved me and gave himself for me well according to the doctrine of general redemption yes Judas has every right in hell to say he loved me and gave himself for me so what comfort is it to me to say that but to know that he loved me when there was nothing more lovable in me than in Judas when he could have set his love upon Judas but he chose to love me and in that covenant redemption included me and gave me to his son included me and when the Lord Jesus went through his priestly act of sacrifice I was upon his breastplate my name was inscribed upon his hands you see the glory of Galatians 2.20 the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me as part of that church that he loved and for whom he gave himself in death well you have other passages such as Titus 2.14 let me give you that as just another example Titus 2 and verse 14 the apostle is urging in the Bible this passage to the godliness that is the inseparable attendant of grace the grace of God hath appeared verse 11 bringing salvation to all men instructing us to the intent the denying of godliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior and what's the rationale behind all of this
who gave himself for us their sacrificial language in order that here's another one of those clauses of purpose who gave himself for us the people of God that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a people for his own possessions zealous of good works what was the intention of his death not to render all men indiscriminately salvable but actually to redeem a people and purify them and bring them into the state where they would be zealous of good works here again you see the death of Christ is viewed as that which secures salvation in all of its dimensions on behalf of those for whom the sacrifice was made and then what I think is one of the classic passages is Romans 8.32 where the apostle argues from the greater to the lesser and says that whoever has been the object of the greater act of God will certainly be the recipient of the lesser gifts and lesser acts of God Romans 8 and verse 32 having announced God's eternal purpose with reference to his own in verses 29 to 30 what shall we say then to these things if God is for us who is against us
he that spared not his own son but delivered him up for us all and as reference to the cross how shall he not also with him freely give us all things if God has so loved us is to make us the objects of the giving of his own dear son having given his son to accomplish whatever he was to accomplish shall he not having given him freely give us all other things and he brings into the closest proximity you see a person being the object of the giving of Christ and being the recipient of every grace necessary to land him safe in glory who is against us if God before us that is if God is committed not just to making all men indiscriminately salvable but actually securing the salvation of his people called in the next verse who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect called in the previous verses those whom he foreknew the death of Christ here is set in the strictest context of particularism and the point that we're making now is the death of Christ is inseparably joined to every blessing necessary to bring those for whom it occurred safe to glory he that spared not his son how shall he not with him freely give us all things so if all men are the objects
of the greatest gift then certainly they'll be the recipients of the lesser gifts well there you're back with universalism again yes then that would include in a very definite way that throughout church history the truth has to be there with the church and that goes against these ideas of rediscovering truth and Darby and all the rest oh yes yes one of the wonderful corollaries that certainly as one of the old writers said whatever has been essential for the life of the people of God and important the Holy Spirit has been promised to lead the people of God into an understanding of that truth and therefore anything that is comes along late in time and is anything more than a further refinement of or a more precise articulation of the historic faith it's a violation of Jude we are to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints and if Jude can say that at that point in redemptive history it is once for all delivered as the canon was drawn to a close you know to come along late in time and to say well here's some essential not some further refinement because there is always that further refinement as we grow up into Christ and God gives teachers for the perfecting of the saints etc so that's a good corollary yes well do you see the point I'm trying to make
Defusing Objections and a Method for Helping Others
I don't want to labor it with a lot of passages but these are broad categories and I say again and this is the only point at which I've been as pervasively biographical when I was wrestling through this issue I found these two things that I've shared with you this morning to be of tremendous help to me and then when I wrestled through these passages particularly Ephesians 5 and Titus 2 and then Matthew 1 though it doesn't mention the cross just the fact that thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people those were the things that pushed me over the hill and then about that time I found out there was someone named John Owen and I began to read Owen and I shall never forget my delight when I came to that section in Owen volume 10 where he's dealing with the fact that I'm a Christian and I'm dealing with the death of death and the death of Christ and lo and behold he built the backbone of one section of his argument on the very passages that God had used to push me over the hill well that just as it were broke my legs after I got over the hill and I knew there was no way back and it was a tremendous help to me and again it helped because it defused then a few verses where all or every or each or world are used and there's a sense in which I could care less now about those passages that on the surface of things are the passages of the Bible may cause some people trouble I'm not at all embarrassed about them because I see that the death of Christ viewed in this particularistic perspective is buttressed on every hand by everything from the covenant of redemption
the whole inter-trinitarian arrangement all the way on the other hand to every category within which it is described sacrifice, propitiation, redemption reconciliation the certainty of its accomplishments so that there's a sense in which I could care less that there's a few verses that prove embarrassing to some people and until someone is prepared to unravel this whole mass of biblical and exegetical and theological material and say that we've just completely misconstrued the whole shoot match then I'm unshaken by someone who comes up and says I turn the tables on him and say I refuse to discuss that with you until first of all we can sit down and talk together about the difference between the two verses and the two verses and the death of Christ viewed in its inseparable biblical categories sir, before we look at 1st Timothy chapter 4 or before we look at 2nd Peter 3.9 will you please discuss with me your understanding of the covenant of redemption and the average person who comes putting 2nd Timothy 3.9 and they always do it by saying how do you explain this when anyone comes saying how do you explain I know they're not looking for light how do you explain this I've heard this before I've heard that so many times well I just say now sir let's discuss together the covenant of redemption well the average person who comes pointing to 2nd Peter 3.9 will look at you and say covenant of what
and then you just proceed lovingly because we're to be wise as serpents harmless as doves gentle to all men apt to teach in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves we just ask the question sir do you believe that whatever Christ did for whomever he was that he did it that he did it in obedience to the Father did Jesus Christ just somewhere along the line get a nice idea that he ought to die for sinners and oh no no no no no he was sent to the Father good alright we're agreed now why did the Father send him well I don't know well did Jesus tell us well I'm not sure well he did sir will you please read John 6 and then you let him begin to read I came down from heaven not to do mine own will you buy that oh yes in the garden he prayed not my will good alright and what was the will of God let Jesus tell us and this is the will of him that sent me that of all that he hath given me now what's it sound like to you Jesus was conscious of a people that were what given to him now when were they given to him now immediately you're making him think of the death of Christ in the larger categories of what we call for theological purposes the covenant of redemption you see and that's I'm just giving you a little idea how to do this you see then you turn to John 17 when Jesus died how many followers did he have didn't have very many did he no
the great multitudes went back Jesus must have died with a broken heart what do you think yeah he sure did well let's see how he died and we turn to John 17 and we just have him read you have him read from his own Bible Jesus lifted up his eyes and said Father I thank thee you've given me authority over all flesh that I should give eternal life to as many as thou ask he says Lord I succeeded how do you explain that throw it back on him you open up that verse to me sir expound it to me now tell me what it means you throw it back upon him throw it back upon him with his own Bible open before his eyes don't use terminology that brings up all kinds of psych just open up the scriptures to him see say now you read that to me well it sounds there like Jesus knew that there was a specific people that he had come to save and he had come to save me that he knew he had infallibly saved them I had glorified thee on the earth having finished the work you gave me to do well if the Father had sent him to get everybody saved he was a miserable failure because he didn't do that and you just begin to let the scriptures speak for themselves you see and then you do this with the other categories we turn into Ephesians 1 where does Paul trace the redemption of the people in Christ when were they in Christ before the foundation of the world well how in the world did anybody get in Christ before the foundation of the world
before nobody was even created now how do you figure that out throw it back at him say how do you figure that out do you believe the Bible well sure I do what does that mean chosen in him before the foundation of the world get him thinking you see the average person who has problems with the concept of definite atonement has those problems because he's never considered these broader categories which lie beneath it and beyond it and outside of it and permeate it you see that's the problem there's this atomistic view of the scriptures the verse here verse here and we must then seek to help people to begin to think in this holistic biblical way see so since the view of general atonement is symptomatic and not causal only a quack treats symptoms good doctors treat causes and the cause of the shoddy views on the extent of the atonement is the ignorance and shoddy views on the larger categories that we've tried to lay before you so I hope you've not only been buttressed by these studies but that you see a method of helping people and that's our desire just as our dear friend who may not understand the biblical teaching on the extent of the atonement he may have a clearer view of some area of scripture and as we seek to help him let's be open to receive his help
in the area where he's gone further in his understanding you know it's quite possible that men who are woolly in their thinking on the extent of the atonement are much sharper in their thinking in some other areas so we don't set ourselves up as the Lord over them but simply to share some good thing God has given to us with the attitude that we are perfectly willing to receive some good thing that God may have revealed to our brother and in that way the body of Christ makes edification of itself by speaking the truth in love
This transcript was generated by automated speech recognition and may contain errors. It is provided for study and reference only; the audio recording is the authoritative source.
Passages Expounded
This passage is expounded to show Christ's particular love for the church and the securing, sanctifying intent of his death for that specific body.
This passage is expounded to highlight Christ's self-giving 'in order that' he might redeem and purify a specific people, demonstrating the effectual nature of his death.
This passage is expounded as a classic argument from the greater to the lesser, proving that God's gift of his Son guarantees all other blessings for those for whom he was delivered.
Texts Expounded
Also Referenced
More from the archive
If this spoke to you, hear also…
-
-
-
The Setting
layers Atonement (conference series)
-
-
-